EG Subscription. Editorial Board. John Roycroft, 17 New Way Road, London, England NW9 6PL

Transcription

1 No (Vol.IX) ISSN-0012^7671 Copyright ARVES Reprinting of (parts of) this magazine is only permitted for non commercial purposes and with acknowledgement. January 2003 flap KAMCCbl L -f v 685

2 Editorial Board John Roycroft, 17 New Way Road, London, England NW9 6PL Ed van de Gevel, Binnen de Veste 36, 3811 PH Amersfoort, The Netherlands Harold van der Heijden, Michel de Klerkstraat 28, 7425 DG Deventer, The Netherlands harold van der Spotlight-column: Jiirgen Fleck, NeuerWegllO, D Krefeld, Germany Originals-column: Noam D. Elkies Dept of Mathematics, SCIENCE CENTER One Oxford Street, Harvard University CAMBRIDGE Mass U.S.A. Treasurer: Marcel van Herck Brialmontlei 66 B-2018 Antwerpen Belgium EG Subscription EG is produced by the Dutch-Flemish Association for Endgame Study ('Alexander Rueb Vereniging voor schaakeindspelstudie 1 ) ARVES. Subscription to EG is not tied to membership of ARVES. The annual subscription of EG (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) is 22,- for 4 issues. Payments should preferably be in EURO'S and can be made by banknote's, Eurogiro, bankcheques and postal money orders. To compensate for bank charges, payments via Eurogiro should be 27,- and all other should be 32,-. Subscribers with an American Express card can also pay 22,-. They have to send their number, expiration date plus signature by post to the Treasurer. Subscribers in Great Britain can pay via John Beasly. They can write him a cheque of 15 (payable to J. D. Beasley, please) for one year's subscription to EG. His address is 7 St James Road, Harpenden, Herts AL5 4NX. Subscribers who want to pay via their bank should take notice of the following information; The name of the bank is: Postbank. The SWIFT-code of the bank is: PSTBNL21 The accountnumber of ARVES is: The address of the bank is: Bijlmerdreef CD N Amsterdam All payments can be addressed to the treasurer (see Editorial Board) except those by Eurogiro which should be directed to: Postbank, accountnumber 54095, in the name of ARVES, Leiderdorp, The Netherlands. It is of course possible with any kind of payment to save bank charges by paying for more years or for more persons together, like some subscribers already do

3 A.P.Kazantsev 6ixl906-14ix2002 After the sad passing of Aleksandr Pavlovich 1 (GULYAEV/Grin) we have to report the equally sad departure of fellow long-lived Muscovite musketeer Aleksandr Petrovich 1 (KAZANTSEV). Like Grin, Kazantsev is inseparable from the prolific and spectacular achievements of chess composition in the Soviet era. Little is known of his private or public life ~ the standard catch-all description of his profession as 'engineer' tells us. nothing - but as his chess and science fiction were constantly published, and as he was a member of the retrospectively despised Writers' Union, and was allowed to travel abroad, we may assume that he was part of the 'nomenklatura' establishment. There is implied confirmation in the series of Kazantsev jubilee tourneys, in the 100,000 edition size of Caissa's Gift (1983), in an encomium by party-hack GM Krogius, and in the artists' colonies Abramtsevo and Peredelkino where he did his writing and composing. (See p269 and pi 14 of op.cit.) Compared to him, Gulyaev was a non-conformist. Kazantsev was, we think, not a regular figure in the Monday evening meetings of composers at 14 Gogolevsky Boulevard (the Central Chess Club). A hand-written dedication (see illustration) is the closest to the great man that an overawed AJR ever came, having wasted the 1958 opportunity of Piran, where the distinctive black square beard subtending the handsome head was prominent, if rarely vocal, when viewed in the middle distance at PCCC sessions chaired by Comins Mansfield. Kazantsev's output of around 70 studies is significant more for content than for quantity. For Kazantsev a study was a work of original art, to be painted when inspiration struck and touched up later by technique as often as necessary ~ such necessity arising from subsequent analytical querying, but also from the just-over-thehorizon mirage of the most natural starting position to show off an outlandish theme or startling conclusion. Natural settings are notoriously prone to analytical flaws. This accounts for the generously high total of 100 Kazantsev studies listed in the van der Heijden database. Kazantsev's composing achievements, titles and posts held, can be referred to in the 1999 Soviet Chess Encyclopedia, while ppll'2-119 of Vol.4 (2001) of Caputto's el arte del ESTUDIO de ajedrez display ten studies, and Kazantsev himself (1983 op.cit. p270) lists tourney and championship honours. Apart from the studies his enduring legacy has to be his co-editorship of The Soviet Chess Study (1955), still the one indispensable classic for any collection. He would want to be remembered equally by his science fiction fans and his study admirers. Both creative genres come alive in the 1983 work which is also something of a chess and literary testament in which his chess colleagues such as A.Gurvich and brother scientist Academician B.Sakharov make guest appearances. At the end he lists his favourite conclusions, all woven into stories (several with pseudo-historical backgrounds) or autobiographical adaptations collected in the same volume. The comparison with Korolkov is interesting. Although Kazantsev was the stronger player, his studies are not more sound. To account for this we need look no farther 687

4 than Kazantsev's constant striving for the most natural setting, whereas Korolkov was not averse to the occasional grotesque. (It seems that Pogosyants talked Kazantsev into co-composing a few near-grotesques.) He would publish versions, in assorted outlets, only for each new one to be holed under the waterline. So Korolkov acquired the GM title, while Kazantsev did not, though a high enough proportion of what he did publish was selected for FIDE Albums. While Korolkov's GM title may be attributed to his facility with the systematic manoeuvre, Kazantsev always hankered after the extraordinary finale expressed with exquisite artistry. Kl is just one setting among many of one of Kazantsev's favourite finishes. It carries the 1983 book source (where it is diagram 189). Kl h6fl /6 Win l.a8q g4+ 2.Kh5 Bxa8 3.g8Q gxh3 4.Qc4+ Kgl 5.Rg7+ Sg4 6.Rxg4+ fxg4 7.Bb6+ Kh2 8.Qfl Bg2 9.Sf3+ gxf3 10.Qgl+ Kg3 ll.q 2+ Qxf2 12.Bc7, a model mate with (static characteristics) not a single gramme of chessboard or chess force fat, arid (dynamic characteristics) four active self-blocks and every man moving into position. wbd8 replaces an earlier wbf8, which allowed 8...Qd5+, now met by 9.Kh4. See K2. K2 the mirage Wt» Ms fc h5g /5. Checkmate

5 However, the rather elementary 10JBc7+ scuppers this, explaining why Kazantsev added bpd7. Kazantsev sent Caputto K3 with the source 'Birnov MT 1986' but it is not, we believe, in the award, though it may have been entered. (It is a dubious practice, favoured by Russian composers, to 'date' a study by the year of a formal tourney even when the study is not in the award and there is no way to confirm the study's true date. The attempted justification is that the composer himself had no information and did not receive his entry back.) K3 A.P.Kazantsev source? 1 Afil w%, w& w% % A " H I B.A h6f /7 Win The composer's solution, with its unlikely first move: LQb8 Bc6 2.Qb6 g4+ 3.Kh5 gxh3 4.Qa6+ Kgl 5.Rg7+ Sg4, and so on, 6.Rxg4+ fxg4 7.Bb6+ Kli2 8.Qfl Bg2 9.SO+ gxf3 lo.qgh Kg3 ll.qf2+ Qxf2 12.Bc7+ d6 13.Bxd6 mate. Caputto (pi 18) proposes 9...Kg3 to draw, based on the survival of the latest addition, bpd7. K4 Caissa's Gift 1975 (pi92) im memory of B.A.Sakharov h5g /5 Win l.f8q Qd2 2.Sh4+ Kli2 3.Qfl Bg2 4.Sf3+ gxf3 5.Qgl+ Kg3 6.Qf2+ Qxf2 7.Bd6 mate. 689

6 We think that K4 is the earliest published version. It may be sound but Kazantsev could not have been happy with bph3 already in place. Kazantsev's eye-catching studies made converts whenever and wherever he published, even if what was printed proved to be unsound. He gave pleasure to the non-expert who lapped up the solution on trust, and he gave satisfaction to the sceptic who set about demolishing. Our world was the winner in either event. There is food for thought here for the sound-at-all-costs critic ~ do we really prefer the astringent Rinck to the Byronic Troitzky? Might we be permitted to distinguish severe tourney award criteria from less formal publication? Or is that a slippery slope? We should link Kazantsev's name neither with the composers who discharge broadsides of entries at tourneys, nor with non-discriminating editors ready to publish anything today. Kazantsev set his standards high right at the start: two of his studies achieved the eclectic accolade of inclusion in Nunn's Endgame Challenge (2002); and Andrei Visokosov pays apt homage with an original science fiction story {Parallel Universes, incorporating a Ryabinin study) published in the young genius's extensive column in Moscow's new (2002) chess periodical The Chess Week. It was published within days of Kazantsev's death. AJR Footnote Hasty publication of a computer demolition risks ridicule. The Rochade Europa column run by Gerhard Josten and Wilhelm Horning is based on computer-testing. This often hits the bull's eye, but not when the g2h entry by A.F.Mackenzie to a BCM tourney of 1900 is trumpeted as 'bust' (see the 'no solution' analysis in the 29th column, in RE xi2002). The 2002 *C* demolition is anticipated by a whole century: following a solving contest the BCM tourney judge C.E.Ranken eliminated the aforementioned study on identical grounds. (Usual thanks to Ken Whyld.) AJR SPOTLIGHT editor: Jiirgen Fleck This time Spotlight's contributors were Ilham Aliyev (Azerbaijan), Marco Campioli (Italy), Noam Elkies (USA/Israel), Mario Guido Garcia (Argentina), Roger Metz (France), Roger Missiaen (Belgium), Alberto Rosa Rodriguez (Argentina), Michael Roxlau (Germany), Karen Soumbatyan (Russia), Harold van der Heijden (Netherlands) and Emil Vlasak (Czech Republic). 690

7 , V.Neidze. Noam recalls a mate-in-2 by F.Giegold (Kristall 1962, c3c e4bld6e6d2c6.d3), which in a way anticipates Neidze's "eye-opening finale". We leave the solution as an exercise for the readers ,1.Akobia. Unsound, Black wins by 2... Kf , S.Tkachenko. In the final award the study was stripped off its first move, which contained a dual given in last Spotlight , O.Rabinovich. In last Spotlight I have quoted a "sound" anticipation.by Wotawa without any further checking. Oh dear! The Wotawa is busted by 2.Kxd4 Kb4 3.h4 c5+ 4.Ke3 Kb3 5.h5 c4 6.h6 c3 7.h7 c2 8.Kd2, a line that is found by any computer in a millisecond. In fact this was pointed out by H.Staudte as early as Incidentally Wotawa's correction (Deutsche Schachzeitung iiil966) was identical with Rabinovich's position after the first move (plus an unnecessary bpf7) , H.Grondijs. There is a dual: 3.Rg6 Rxd3 4.Rg4+ Kf5 5.Kxd3 wins , N.Mironenko. Harold found my remark "Some readers have claimed a draw by 2... Sc3." a little terse, given that the composer had provided some analysis, and admittedly I should have added the line 3.Qg8 Se2+ 4.Kf2 Kxh2 5.Qb3 Sc T61 p.621, A.van Tets. There is a dual: l.kc7 c5 2.Kd6 Bg6 3.Ke5 Be8 4.Kf5 and wins. 145.W8a p.628, P.Keres. There is another cook in addition to the one mentioned in EG 145: l.rxf7 alq 2.Kg6 Qa3 3.Be7 and wins. It is unlikely that Keres should have missed these simple lines. Perhaps there was a diagram error in the original source: with the g-pawns on f2 and f3 the study looks perfectly sound , Y.Petrishin. Unsound. White has alternative wins by 3.Rh5 Rxh5 4.Kxli5 Sxe3 5.d6 Sg2 6.Bc4 and l.bf4 Rxd5 (1... Sxg4 2.Rxh2+) 2.Rxh2+ Kgl 3.Be , V.Kovalenko. The final play is not strictly unique, e.g. 8.Kf5 Kf7 9.h5 Ke7 10.Kg6 Kf8 11.h6 Kg8, and now the neat 12.Kh5 wins , S.Borodavkin. Very dubious. The analytical objection is 6.d4 Bxd4 7.Qxh6+, when I cannot find a save haven for the black king, e.g Kd5 8.Qh5+ Ke4 9.Qh7+ Kf4 10.Qh2+ Kf3 ll.qh3+ Ke2 12.Qg2+ Kdl 13.Kbl and White holds out. However, is it too far-fetched to simply claim a win on material for Black after, say, 2... Kf7? Black should be able to co-ordinate his forces, pick up the g-pawn and push through the h-pawn , A.Oleinik. The tempo-play beginning with 5.Kli3 seems unnecessary, as 5.Rg7 Re6 (5... Rel? 6.Kf2 Re6 7.R1V7) 6.Kf2 saves three moves over the solution. But worse still, there seems to be a cook by 9... g5 10.hxg5 hxg5 ll.rxg5+ (Il.fxg5 f4 is a positional draw) Kh6 12.Rxf5 Rxe7 with a draw , A.Amiryan. Spoilt by several duals, a nice one is 4.Ke5 hlq 5.Rg7+ Kf3 6.Bxe4+ Ke3 7.Rg3+ and wins , V.Kalyagin. There is a dual: 3.Qf5+ Rd3 4.Sa3+ Kc3 5.Qa5+ Kb3 6.Qb5+ Kxa3 7.Qxd3+ S(any)c3 8.Qc4 and wins. Black cannot keep the white king in the corner , V.Kalyagin. The 5-man-database points out duals galore, e.g. 2.Ke , A.Sadikov. Black's supposedly clever defence 3... fxgs leads straight to the winning GBR class 0116, when the further play lacks relevance. 691

8 , A.Foguelman. No solution, Black wins by 3... Sa , P.Gyarmati. Roger Missiaen claims a cook by l.re3 Bc2 2.Ra3 Ba4 3.Sg5 Bdl 4.Rh3+ (only 4.Rh2 is analysed by the composer) Kgl 5.Rd3 Khl 6.Sh3 Be2 7.Rc3 Kh2 8.Rc6 and wins. This seems right, but given the difficulty of this line I have invited the composer to comment on this , V.Kichigin. Sent to more than one tourney: see EG (Magyar Sakkelet 1971, Commendation) , L.Mitrofanov. There are some duals in the line 3... Ka6 (4.Qd6+ Ka7 5.Qa3+ Kb6 6.Qb3+ Ka6 7.Kc7, to name just one). The main line 3... Kc4 is free from duals, as 5.Qb5+, which was mentioned by several readers, is just a lengthy waste of time after 5... Kd4 6.Qe5+ Kc4 7.Qc5+ Kb3 8.Qb5+ Kc3 9.Qb2+ Kc4 10.Qb4+ Kd , N.Kralin. No solution, Black draws by 2... elq+ 3.Kxel Re4+ 4.Kf2 Kg6 thanks to the wrong-coloured bishop , L.Mitrofanov. Oops, 4... Sf5 is an immediate draw , A.Bor. Black's 3rd move is a little co-operative. There is no win in sight after 3... g3, e.g. 4.Sxg3 Rg5 5.Sf5 Rgl 6.Sxh6 Rfl+ 7.Sf5 Rgl and White can make no progress. The knight is not very effective on f , A.Sochnev. There is the dual 2.Bd2+ Kh5 3.Bel h2 4.Sf5, which leads to lines similar to the actual solution. 146.A5 II p.677,1.aliev. There are several flaws. Black draws by 4... axblq+ 5.Kxbl Kxg5, and earlier White has 2.Sxb3 cxb3 3.Kcl and wins. 146.A6 p.681,1.aliev (after Bondarenko). No 'first publication 1, but already published in Aliev's article in EG Alia p.683, A.Mouterde. There is the dual 5.Kbl. 146.Allb p.683, A.Kuryatnikov. The solution as given in the notes is sound. However, the composer's main line was the much tougher defence 5... Qb7. The intended solution was 6.Rbl Qg7 7.Kd2+ Kf2 8.Kd3+ KG 9.Rfl+, but unfortunately there is the dual 6.Rh2 Kgl 7.Re2 Qg7 8.Kbl Kfl 9.Rc2. By the way, the study figured not in the regular award of Shakhmaty v SSSR, but in a thematic tourney held by that magazine. 146.A11 I p.683, I.Aliev (after A.Mouterde). There is a dual: 4.Rg2 Kfl 5.Rh2 Kgl 6.Rd2 Qe5 7.Kbl and wins. 692

9 DIAGRAMS AND SOLUTIONS editors: John Roy croft Harold v.d. Heijden Chervony Girnik-75AT, 1999 The award of this anniversary tourney for 75 years of Ukrainian newspaper Chervony girnik was published in Chervony girnik 23xil999, a somewhat different award under the same name, though with the same judge (Mikola Rezvov), appears in a booklet "Mistetski shakhi". The Yarmonov (and others) figure in both but both are 'final' (sic, even if in Ukrainian): one award has 6 studies and the other has 6 more! Translation assistance (Ukrainian to Russian) received from N.Griva 9xi2002 No S.N.Tkachenko 1 st prize Chervony Girnik- 75 AT, 1999 r m v m y m dial /6 Win- No Sergei N.Tkachenko (Odessa, Ukraine). I.d7 c2+ 2.Kd2 Sf3+ 3.Kxd3 Bf6 4.Sxf6 Se5+ 5.Kd2/i Sxd7 6.Sxd7 c5 7.Kxc2 c4 8.Sc5/ii c3 9.S5b3 mate. i) 5.Kxc2? Sxd7 6.Sxd7 "c6!!" is presumably the thematic try that impressed the judge. j ii) Zugzwang. There is no stalemate. "From the outset Black has counterplay: a thematic try in which Black shines with 6...c6!! But cunning play by wk establishes the composition's rich content, including a winning 'Troitzky' position." No Yarmonov 2nd prize Chervony Girnik- 75 AT, 1999 [also in MSh] d3g /7 Win No Igor Yarmonov (Mariupol). I.h3+ Kf5/i 2.Se7+ Ke5 3.Bc7+ d6 4.Bb6, with: - Qh7/ii 5.Bd4 Kf4 6.Be3+ Ke5 7.Bg5 and 8.f4 mate, or - g5 5.Bd4+ Kf4 6.Be3 Ke5 7.f4+ gxf4 8.Bd4 mate. i) Kh4 2.Bd8+ g5 3.Bc7 Qa6 4.Kd2(Ke3), and Qc8 5.Bg3mate 9 org4 5.Bd8. ii) Qf4(Qf8) 5.Sxg6+. Or Kf6 5.Sg8+. Or Qcl 5.Bd4+ Kf4 6.Be3 Qxe3 7.fxe3+ wins. "The far-sighted first move selection (with hp) leads to a fresh domination with active wb participation. The pure midboard mates add beauty." 693

10 No V.Vlasenko 3rd prize Chervony Girnik- 75 AT, 1999 [also in MSh] No V.Prigunov 1 st honourable mention Chervony Girnik-75AT, 1999 No G.Amiryan, 2nd honourable mention Chervony Girnik-75AT, 1999 e4cl /4 Draw No Valery Vlasenko (Kharkov region). l.sd4 Bc4/i 2.KG h2 3.Kg2 Bd5+ 4.hSD/ii Kb2 5.Khl Ba8 6.Kg2 Ka3 7.Sc2+ Kb3 8.Sel Kb2 9.Khl Kcl 10.Sg2 Bxf3 stalemate, i) h2 2.Se2+ K- 3.Sg3 draw. Or g2 2.Sxg2 h2 (hxg2;kf3) 3.Se2+ K- 4.Sg3 draw. ii) Thematic try: 4.dSf3? Kdl 5.Khl Ke2 6.Sg2 Kxf3, and mates. "Avoiding the thematic try White's play involving pinning a knight heralds a stalemate finale." h4f /5 Draw No V.Prigunov (Russia). l.d8q+/i Bxd8 2.e7 Bxe7 3.a7 Kg6+ 4.Kg3/ii Bh4+ 5.Kxli4 Sf5+ 6.Kh3 Bd3 7.Kg2 Bc4 8.a8Q Bxd5+ 9.Kh3 Bxa8, a pure stalemate, i) I.a7? Sf5+, and 2.Kxli5 Be4 3.a8Q Bf3 mate, or 2.Kh3 Bd3 3.Kg2 Be4+ 4.Kh3 Bxd5 5.d8Q Bxd8 6.e7 Sxe7 wins, ii) 4.Kh3? h4 5.a8Q Bf5 mate. "By luring bb onto another diagonal White sets up a stalemate fortress." f8f /3 Win No Gamlet Amiryan (Artmenia). l.ke7 Re2+ 2.Kd7 Rd2+ 3.Kc7 Rc2+ 4.Kb7 Rb2+/i 5.Bb6 Rxb6 6.Kxb6 Rh6 7.f8Q Rf6+ 8.Be6+ wins, i) Rg2 5.f8Q grxg8 6.Qf7 Rf8 7.Qd5+ Kg6 8.Bd4 Rb8 9.Ka7 wins. "The systematic movement of wk and br leads to an original checkery ~ nuances which, unfortunately, have been seen before." So, not 'original 1!? 694

11 No F.Kapustin, 3rd honourable mention Chervony Girnik-75AT, 1999 [also in MSh] # if (M m ''/%>. r m No L.Topko, j "The choice of rook to 4th honourable mention j play to the seventh rank Chervony Girnik-75AT, masks a thematic try." 1999 No M.Pastalaka, [also in MSh] 1 st commendation Ghervony Gimik-75AT, 1999 a2e /6 Win No F.Kapustin (Zaporozhe region). l.rcl? Kd8. l.kb3?kf8. So: l.kbl Kf8/i 2.Ra8+ Kg7 3.Rxh8 Kxli8 4.b4, with: - Kg8 5.b5 Kf8 6.b6 Ke8 7.b7 Kd8 8.b8Q mate, or - h5 5.b5 h4 6.b6 h3 7.b7 h2 8.b8Q+ wins. i) Castling is a demonstrable illegality. "Not immediately obvious", comments Hew Dundas. "With the k-move onto the first rank White avoids blocking his own bp. The element of retrograde analysis adds value." c7a /3 Win j No Leonid Topko (Krivoi Rog). l.rb7+/i Kxa6 2.Rb6+ Ka7 3.Rb5/ii Ka6 4.Bd3/iii Qe4 5.Rb6+ Ka7 6.Ra6 mate. I i) l.bxa8? Sd5+ 2.Bxd^ stalemate. j ii) This is the second capture avoidance. i iii) And this is the third. Will there be a fourth?! j "Successive capture avoidance (bq!) is justified by the alert battery directed against bk."! No M.Pastalaka (Kharkov region, Ukraine). l.rg7 Rb8/i 2.Rd7+ Kc8 3.aRa7 Rbl 4.Ra8+ Rb8 5.Rc7+ 6.Rxb8 mate. i)re2 2.Rg8+Re8 3.ag wins. Rh8 2.Rhl Rf8,'3. Rd7+Ke8 4.Relmate. d6d /4 Win No V.Kondratev, 2nd commendation Chervony Girnik-75AT, 1999 [also in MSh] mm m m- - a5d /4 Draw No V.Kondratev (Russia). l.sc2+ Kd3 2.Se3/i Kxe3 3.Sfl+ Kd3 4.Sxd2 Kxd2 5.Ka6/ii Kc3 6.b4 Kc4 7.b5 Kc5 8.b6 cxb6 stalemate. 695

12 i) 2.Sb4+? Kc3 3.Se2+ Kxb3 4.Sd4+ Kb2 5.Sd3+ Kc3 6.Sf2 Kd4 wins, ii) 5.b4? Bb7 6.Kb5 Kd3 7.Kc5 Ke4 8.b5 Ke5 9.b6 c6 wins. "After sacrificing both his knights White's cautious 5.Ka6! saves him ~ and there are two stalemates." No E.Vaulin, 3rd commendation Chervony Girnik-75AT, 1999 ^ f7c /7 Win No E.Vaulin (Russia). l.sb3 (Sxc2?) clq 2.Sxcl (Bxcl?) Bxcl 3.e5 Bxf4 4.e6 Bd6 5.Be5 b3 6.e7 b2 7.e8Q blq 8.Qe7+ Kb6/i 9.Qxd6+ Ka5 10.Qc6 Qb3+ ll.kf6 Kb4 12.Bd6+ Ka5 13.Bg3 Kb4 14.Bel+ Ka3 15.Qc5+ Kxa4 16.Qxa7+ Kb5 17.Qb7+ Ka4 18.Qa6 mate. i) Kc8 9.Qxd6 Qb3+ 10.Ke7 wins. "The sharply pointed introductory play leads to white material superiority in the outcome." No V.Razumenko, special prize Chervony Girnik-75AT, 1999 c8a /8 Win No Viktor Razumenko (St Petersburg). l.qa6+ Ra7 2.Qc6+ brb7 3.g7 d2 4.g8QdlQ5.gQd5,with: - Qxd5 6.exd5 e4 7.d6 e3 8.d7 e2 9.d8Q elq 10.dQd6 Qg3 ll.qxb7+ Rxb7 12.Qa6+ Ra7 13.Qc6+ wins, or - Qg4+ 6.Kd8 Kb8 7.Qxe5 Rc7 8.Qb6+ Ka8 9.Qd5+cRb7 10.Qc7 h3 Il.e5 Qe6 12.Qc8+Qxc8+ 13.Kxc8g4 14.e6g3 15.e7 g2 16.e8S glq 17.Sc7 mate. "A good development of the composer's earlier output. The quality of this version lies in the sharp exchange between the two queens. It's a shame that the checkmate by underpromotion gained an honour elsewhere." No M.Pastalaka, special honourable mention Chervony Girnik-75AT, 1999 [also in MSh] del /2 Win No M.Pastalaka (Kharkov region, Ukraine). l.bd/i, with: - R- 2.Bh5 Rf8 3.Kc2 Kf2 4.Kd3 Kg3 5.Ke4 Kh4 6.Be2 Kg5 7.Ke5 Kg6 8.Ke6 wins, or - Kf2 2.Bc6 Kel 3.Kc2/ii Ke2 4.Kc3 Ke3 5.Kc4 Kf4 6.d8Q Rxd8 7.Be8 wins. i) Creating a position of reciprocal zugzwang. ii) 3.d8Q? Rxd8 4.Be8 Rdl+ 5.K- Rd2+ 6.K- Rf2 drawn. "White's unexpected first move is the pretty prelude to a duel of the two monarchs. There's partial anticipation." 696

13 Yugoslav Chess Composition Championship The award Prvenstvo Jugoslavije u Komponovanju Sahovskih Problema za godinu was published in Belgrade, A.Selivanov (Moscow) acted as judge. Comments: One original was required per section entered. The championship was for a single overall title across seven genres judged independently. The placing points for the first 11 places (provided the entry was sound): Shared placing was excluded. There were no set themes. Only five of the 19 studies scored. No M. Kovacevic, 1st place Yugoslav Chess Composition Championship (studies section) f2g /6 Win No Marjan Kovacevic (Zemun). l.be7+/i Qxe7 2.h8Q Kg4 j 3.Qh6 (for Qg6+) Qf6/ii j 4.Bg6 Sg7 5.Bf5+ Kxf5 I 6.g4+ Ke6 7.g5 Qxh6 j 8.gxh6 wins. i) l.bh6+?kg4(elseh8q) 2.h8Q Qd4+, and 3.Be3 Qb2+, or 3.Kel Qb4+ draw. ii) Sg7 4.Be4 Qg5 (K- ;Bf3+) 5.Bxf3+ Kf5 6.g4+ Kf4 7.Qh2 mate. Or e4 4.Qg5 5.Qxe4+ Kh3 6.Qh7+ Kg4 7.Bf5+ Qxf5 8.Qh4 mate. Or Sd6 4.Q g 6+Qg5 5.Qxd6. I "The liveliest study, with movement and subtlety right from the start The effective second wbr sacrifice paves the way for the promotion march of the g-pawn yielding the Phoenix theme." And very nearly an excelsior! j I No B.Ilincic, j 2nd place Yugoslav Chess 1 Composition Championship No B.Ilincic (Belgrade). l.bd4 Kf5 2.Ka2/i Ke4 3.Ka3 Kd3 4.Kb3 Kd2 5.Sa3 Kd3 6.Sb5 wins. i) 2.Kal? Ke6 3.Ka2 Kd6 draws. "... wk manoeuvre (3.Ka3!) to lose a move." No M.Markovic, 3rd place Yugoslav Chess Composition Championship bldl /6 Draw No Mirko Markovic (Vlasotince). l.sd5/i Sc4/ii 2.Sc3+/iii Kd2 3.Se4+/iv Bxe4+/v 4.Rxe4 Se3 (cxd4;rg4) 5.dxc5/vi g2 6.Rd4+ Kc3/vii 7.Rdl (Rd3+? Kb4;) Sxdl 8.Sf4 glq/viii 9.Se2+ Kb 3 lo.sxgl Sc3+ (Bxc5;Se2) ll.kcl Bxc5 12.SB Be3+ 13.Sd2+ Kb4 14.Kc2 draw. i) l.se6?g2 2.Rg5 c4, and 3.gSf4 c3, or 3.Rg3 Kd2, or 3.Kb2Kd2. Black wins, ii) Bxd5 2.Rxd5 cxd4/ix 3.Rg5 Bc7 4.Rd5 Sc6 (Sb3;Kb2) 5.Rc5 draw.

14 iii) 2.Rg5? Bxd5 3.Rxd5 Sd2+ 4.Ka2 c4 5.Rg5/x Se4 6.Rg4 c3 7.Se5 c2 8.Sd3 Kd2. 2.Se3+? Sxe3 3.Rxe3 g2 4.Rg3/xi Bc7 5.Rg5 (Rg4,c4;) Be4+ 6.Kb2 cxd4 7.Sh4 Bd8 8.Rxg2 Bxg2 9.Sxg2 Bg5 wins, iv) 3.Rg5? Kxc3 4.dxc5 Bc7 wins. Or 3.Re2+? Kxc3 4.dxc5 Bxc5 wins, v) Ke3 4.Sxg3+ Sxe5 5.Sxe5+ draw. vi)5.sf4?c4wins. 5.Se5? Ke2 6.Sg4 cxd4 wins, vii) Ke2 7.Sf4+ draws. Or Kel 7.Sh4 draw, viii) Se3 9.Sxg2 draw. gls 9.cxb6 draw, ix) c4 3.Rg5 c3 4.Rxg3 c2+ 5.Ka2 Bxd4 6.Rh3 draw. x) 5.Sh4? c3 6.Sf5 Sfl wins. 5.Sf4? c3 6.Rg5/xii Se4 7.Re5 c2 8.Sd3 Kd2 wins. xi) 4.Rd3+ Kel 5.Kcl cxd4 wins. xii) 6.Sd3? c2 7.Re5 Sf3 8.Re3 g2 wins. No M.Kovac, 4th place Yugoslav Chess Composition Championship lik^h^ift" d8h /3 Win No Milan Kovac (Sombor). l.rla6ra7 2.Rc8Ra8 3.Rf6Rxc8+ 4.Kxc8gxf6 5.Kd7wins. No M.Nedeljkovic, 5th place Yugoslav Chess Composition Championship w, A m n i v H m y w, y ii i) Ke7 3.Qxc7+ Kf6 4.Qxc3 wins. XII Moscow championship, 1989 This restricted, mixed rules tourney was judged by A.Kalinin. The set theme was 'Black avoids administering a positional stalemate but White secures a draw by other means, such as perpetual pursuit, another stalemate, any positional draw, etc' Judge's report/ajr remarks: 35 points were awarded to Pervakov's entries, 31 to Pogosyants, and 30 to E.Kolesnikov. Competition among practically all Moscow's composers was intense. No O.Pervakov 1st place XII Moscow championship, 1989 e2e /5 Win No Milomir Nedeljkovic (Belgrade). I.g7 Qxg7 2.Qc6+ Kf5/i 3.e4+ Kf4 4.Qxc3 Qh7 5.Sd3+ Kg4 6.Sf2+ Kh5 7.Qh3+ Kg6 8.Qxh7 wins. h7f /4 Draw No Oleg Pervakov (Moscow). A complete entry submitted for this championship (and others like it) had to consist of an 698

15 original to a prescribed theme and a number of other works published in the designated period. Complete awards (in the western sense of complete) of these championships have rarely, if ever, been published. Bare (ie, devoid of position/solution chess evidence) 'sporting results' were reported solely in the (now defunct) Bulletin of the Central Chess Club of. the USSR and continued in Shakhmatnaya kompozitsia. This study by Pervakov is the sole original in the XII championship to appear as such, though others may have subsequently been placed elsewhere, this being a 'pragmatic' Russian approach to 'publication' in a society where the authoritarian 'tradition' (joke!) is for tight control of the media including stern (a euphemism for corrupt) rationing of paper supplies for printing. I.g6+ Kf6 2.Sd5+ ( g 7;Kxf5) Kxf5 (Kg5;g7) 3.Sxe7+ Rxe7+ 4.g7 grxg7+ (Kg5;Kxg8) 5.hxg7 Kf6 6.Kh8 Rxg7 stalemate. Open Championship of Moscow for 2000 The award was published in Shakhmatnaya kompozitsia 38 (18xii2000) and was judged by Kuzma Osul (Moscow). Only six studies were published. No other information. AJR remarks: apparently, this was 'open' for the first time, with two themes set, the winner being the composer with most points summed for both themes. Theme 1: a win study ending in checkmate. \ No N.Ryabinin j 1 st place Open Championship of Moscow; for 2000 \ d8f /9 Win No Nikolai Ryabinin (Zherdevka). l.sxg6+? turns out to be 1 a thematic try: Kg8 2.e7 Re2 3.dSe5 Rxe5 4.Sxe5 flq 5.e8Q+ Qf8 6.Sc6 Qxe8+ 7.Kxe8 a3 8.Se7+. Kh8 9.Kf8 a2 10.Sc6 alq ll.sd8 Qf6+ 12.Sf[7+ Qxf7 13.Kxf7 g4 14.Bc7 Be5 15.Bd8 g3 16.Be7; g2 17.Bf8 glq, and Black is out of all danger, as he is after LSf5? Re2 2.Se5 3.Bxd6+ Kg8 4.Bxe5 Bxe5 5.e7 Bf6, or LSdS? Rc8+ 2.Kxc8 flq 3.Kd8 Qe2 4.Kd7 Qe4. The true path: l.sc6 Re2 2.dSe5 Rxe5 3.Sxe5 flq 4.e7+ Kg8 5.e8Q+ Qf8 6.Sc6 Qxe8+ 7.Kxe8 a3 8.Se7+ Kh8 9.Kf8 a2 10.Sc6 alq ll.sd8 Qf6+ 12.S17+ Qxf7 13.Kxf7 g4 14.Bc7 Be5 15.Bd8 g3 16.Be7 g2 17.Bf8 glq 18.Bg7+ Bxg7 19.hxg7 mate. "Gripping contest topped off with a mate by a pawn. 12 points." No N.Kralin 2nd place Open Championship of Moscow for 2000 a7bl /5 Win No N.Kralin (Moscow). l.rhl fxg2/i 2.Sxg2+ Ka2 3.Rxh2 b3 4.Se3+ b2 5.Sc4/ii Rh7+ 6.Ka6 Rh6+ 7.Ka5 Rxh3 8.Rxh3blQ9.Ra3mate. i) f2 2.Sd3+ Ka2 3.Sxf2 Be5 4.Rdl b3 5.Bf5 wins. 699

16 ii) Thematic try': 5.Sdl? Rli7+ 6.Ka6 RI16+ 7.Ka5 Rh5+ 8.Ka4 Rh4+ 9.Ka5 Rh5+ 10.Kb4 Rxh3 ll.sc3+ Rxc3 12.Kxc3 Kal 13.Rxb2 stalemate. "Subtle white play gets the better of a sharp defence by the black pieces." No P.Arestov 3rd place Open Championship of Moscow for 2000 r m m r r f6e /4 Win No Pavel Arestov (Moscow region). l.rg5? B 2.Rg4+ Kd5 draw. l.re5+ Kd3/i 2.Rg5 f3 3.Ke5 f2 4.Rg3+ Ke2 5.Rxg2 Kd3 6.Sc2 flq 7.Sb4 mate. i) Kf3 2.Rg5 Kf2 3.Sc2 wins. "Not so complicated, but neat withal. 10 points." Theme 2: a draw study ending in stalemate. No N.Kralin =lst/2nd place Open Championship of Moscow for 2000 hlh /5 Draw No Nikolai Kralin (Moscow). Not l.rb2? Sxb2 2.Bxc6 bsd3 3.Se4 Sxe4 4.Bd7+ Kg3 5.fxe4 Kf3. Nor l.rxd3? Rb6 2.f4+ Sxd3 3.Bd7+ Rg4 4.Bxg4+ Kxg4 5.Sc4 Rc6 6.Sa5 Rc2 ^7.Sb3 Rb2. Black will win. l.se4 Sxe4 2.Bd7+ Kg3 3.Bxc6 dsf2+ 4.Kgl Sh3+ 5.Kfl Sd2+ 6.Ke2 Sxb3 7.Bd6+ Sf4+/i 8.Ke3 Rf5 9.Be4 Rf6 10.Be5 Rf8 ll.bd6 Rf6 12.Be5 Rf7 13.Bd5 Re7 14.Be4 Rf7 15.Bd5 Re7 16.Be4 Rxe5 stalemate. i) Kh4 8.Be7 Sd4+ 9.Kd2 Sxc6 10.f4 Sxe7 Il.fxg5 draw. "Top of the class. Exceptionally sharp play. 13 points." No P.Arestov =lst/2nd place Open Championship of Moscow for 2000 %jm r m w dlf /7 Draw No Pavel Arestov (Moscow region). l.qb3? Rgl+ 2.Kc2 blq 3.Qxbl Kf6+. l.qxb4? Rgl+ 2.Kc2 exd2 3.Kxd2 blq. Black will win. l.kc2 exd2 2.Kxb2 Sd3+ 3.Ka2 b3+ 4.Qxb3 Scl+ 5.Rxcl, with: - dxclq 6.Qf3+ Ke5 7.Qc3+ Qxc3 stalemate, or - dxcls+ 6.Kbl Sxb3 7.e4+ Kg4 stalemate. "wk has guts. Two stalemates with wp pinned on e2 and e4. A great study. 13 points." 700

17 No K.Tamopolsky 3rd place Open Championship of Moscow for 2000 rs r «r m No N.Kralin 1st place Open Championship of Moscow 2001 ii «> # it No N.Kralin prize Moscow Town 2000 hig /4 Draw No Klimenty Tarnopolsky (Moscow). I.dxe4 Bxe4+ 2.Kh2 ft 3.Sd7 f2 4.Sf6+ Kf5 (Kf3;Sxe4) 5.Sg4 Kxg4 stalemate, "unexpected and a beauty. 10 points." Open Championship of Moscow 2001 The award was published in Shakhmatnaya kompozitsia 44 V.Ivanov acted as judge. The set theme was a winning P-ending with obligatory try. Only one thematic entry was published. c5a /3 BTM Win No Nikolai Kraliiii (Moscow). L..b6+2.Kd5/i b5 3.h4 gxh4 4.Kc5 Ka5 5.f4 b4 6.Kc4 Ka4 7.f5 b3 8.Kc3 Ka3 9.f6 b2 10.f7 blq ll.f8q+ Ka2 12.Qa8 mate. i)2.kc4?kb7 3.Kb5(Kd5) Kc7. Or 2.Kc6(Kd6)? b5 3.Kc5 Ka5 4.h4 b4 5.Kc4 Ka4 6.hxg5 b3 7.Kc3 Ka3 8.g6 b2 9.g7 blq 10.g8b Qb2+ll.Kd3Qxf2 drawl Moscow Town traditional 2000 The award was published on ppl4-16 of Shaklimatnaya kompozitsia no.3 8 "18xii2000". Klimeiity Tarnopolsky (MOSCOJW) acted as judge. 16 studies by 12 composers were entered, not only Russians. Judge's report/a JR remarks: general level below the usual a6e /6 Draw No Nikolai Kralin (Moscow). l.sf7+ Sxf7 2.Rxh2 Rd6+ 3.Kb7 Bg3 4.Rh5+Ke4 5.Rxf3,with: - Sd8+ 6.Kc8 ICxf3 7.Rd5 Sb7 8.Rb5 Sd8 9.Rd5 Rxd5, a pure stalemate, or - Rd7+ 6.Ka8 Rd8+ 7.Ka7 Rd7+ 8.Ka8 KxO 9.Rf5+ K- 10.Rxf7 Rxf7, more of the same. "Faced with the strong passed pawns on the king's wing White constructs a stalemate cell on the opposite side, where it is carried out twice. Especially fine is the first, which has no capture of black force." 701

18 No S.Abramenko special prize Moscow Town 2000 f7h /4 Win No S.Abramenko l.sg5+ Kh6 2.e5 Se2 3.e6 Sg3/i 4.e7/ii Sf5 5.e8Q Sd6+ 6.Kg8 Sxe8 7.Sf7, a pure checkmate, i) Sd4 4.Kg8 Sxe6 5.Sf7 mate. ii) 4.Kg8? Kxg5 5.e7 Se4. "Special - for the best miniature." No E.Markov 1 st honourable mention Moscow Town 2000 a4g /5 Win No Evgeny Markov l.qa3? Sxg3 2.Qxg3 Qe4+. l.qb8 Sxg3 2.Bd7+/i Qf8 3.Qxg3 Qa8+ 4.Kb4 Qe4+ 5.Kc3 Qxe2 6.Bxg4, domination, Qe7 7.Be6+, with Kf8 8.Qg8 mate, or Kh7 8.Qg8 mate. i) 2.Bg6+? Qf8 3.Qxg3 Qa8+ 4.K- Qb7+ draw. "bq avoids all the discoveries only to block the fanlight of his own king." No N.Kralin 2nd honourable mention Moscow Town 2000 c6d /3 Draw No Nikolai Kralin (Moscow). I.b5? Bxb5+ 2.Kb7 Sa8. l.a8q+ Sxa8 2.b5 Bc8 3.b6 Bf5 4.Kb7/i Be4+ 5.Ka6/ii Kc8 6.Ka7/iii Bc6 7.e4 Bxe4 8.e3zz Bc6 9.e4 Bxe4 10.b7+Bxb7 stalemate, i) 4.b7? Be4+ 5.K- Bxb7 wins. ii) 5.Ka7? Kc8zz 6.b7+ Bxb7 7.e4 Bxe4. iii) Black pays this round! "Curious fight of 4 pawns against two minors, leading up to a reci-zug. Masterly interlinking of king and white pawns." No B.Sidorov 3rd honourable mention Moscow Town 2000 d8g /3 Win No Boris Sidorov (Apsheronsk). 1.Rd7/i dlq/ii 2.Rxdl Rxdl+ 3.Kc7/iii Ral 4.Bd3+ Kxf6 5.Bbl Rxbl 6.a7 Rcl+ 7.Kb6 Rbl+ 8.Ka5 Ral 9.a4 wins, i) The following is described as a 'thematic 1 try. l.be2? Kxf7 2.a7 Rxa2 3.Bc4+ Kxf6 4.Bxa2 dlq+ is only a draw, ii) Rxfl 2.a7 Rxf6 3.Rxd2 Ra6 4.Rd7 wins, iii) 3.Ke7? Rel+ 4.Kd7 Rdl+ 5.Kc6 Rxfl 6.a7 Rxf6+ 7.Kb? Rf7+, is no more than perpetual check. "We like the incarceration of br achieved by the undefended wb's move to bl." 702

19 No E.Kudelich 4th honourable mention Moscow Town 2000 f2e /4 Win No E.Kudelich l.bh6 b3 2.Bcl Kd3/i 3.Sxa5 Kc3 4.Ke3 b2/ii 5.Bd2 mate, 'ideal 1 and central. i) a4 3.Ke2 Kd5 4.Sb4+ Kd4 5.Sd3 Kc4 6.Kd2 wins. ii) Kb4 5.Sb7 Kc3 6.Sc5 b2 7.Sa4+ wins. No V.Katsnelson commendation Moscow Town 2000 ii m&m m <M% mm WM v/m r ^p w f e7h /4 Win No Vladimir Katsnelson (St Petersburg). l.re5/i Rxc2/ii 2.Kf7 Rf2+ 3.Kg8 c2 4.e7 clq 5.e8Q Qc4+ 6.Re6+ Rf6/iii 7.Qf8+ wins. i) LRel?Kg7 2.Re5Rxc2 3.Rg5+ Kh6 4.Rxg4 Rf2 5.g3 c2 6.Rc4 Kg7 7.Ke8 Rd2 draw. l.re4? Rxc2 2.Kf7R 2+ 3.Kg8 c2 4.e7 clq 5.e8Q Qg5+, even with a win. ii) Rxg2 2.Kf7 Rf2+ 3.Kg8 g3 4.e7 g2 5.Re6+ K-6.e8Q. iii) Kg5 7.Qe7+ Kh 8.Qh7+ Kg5 9.Qh6+. No G.Amiryan commendation Moscow Town 2000 y/ m m y,m, y/ m A m A wd'' A m\ r r r r 1 e7d /5 Draw No Gamlet Amiryan (Armenia). ljf7 Se5 2.f8Q Sg6+ 3.Kxd^/i Sxf8 4.Bf6+ Ke4 5.Bxb2 g2 6.Bd4 Kxd4 7.b7 glq 8.b8Q Qg3+ 9.Kc6 Qxb8 stalemate, mirror variety. i)'3.ke8?sxf8 4.Bf6+Re4 5.Bxb2 Se6 6.b7 Sc7+ 7.Kd7 Sa6 wins. No N.Argunov commendation Moscow Town 2000 ^mfm v «r mw, a5a /5 Draw No N.Argunov Lb7Be2/i2.Rb5,with: - c2 3.b8Q clq 4.Rb3+ Ka2 5.Ra3+ Qxa3 6.Qbl+ Kxbl stalemate, or - Bxb5 3.b8Q c2 4.Qxb5 clq 5.Qxc6 Qxc6 stalemate. i) c2 2.b8Q clq 3.Qb4+ Ka2 4.Qxa4+. No A.Popov commendation Moscow Town 2000 m m m e5gl /4 Win No A.Popov l.be3+ Khl 2.Bd5 Bd2 3.Bf2 Be3 4.Sc3 Bd4+ 703

20 5.Kf4 Be3+ (Bxc3;Kg3) 6.Kg4 Bxf2 7.Se2 B- 8.Kh3 B- 9.Bxg2 mate. No Ugo Degener commendation Moscow Town 2000 cook and another for too three jumps (moves 8, 9 many chessmen. and 11)." No A.Visokosov, 1 st prize Moscow Town 2001 No N.Kralin, 2nd prize Moscow Town 2001 m m m m\ H m. m*m.. it h3d /4 Win No Ugo Degener l.rb7, with: -blq2.rxb5+qxb5 3.c4+Qxc4 4.Sb6+Ke6 5.Sxc4Kf5 6.Kg4d5 7.Se5 wins, or -Kc6 2.Rb6+Kc5 3.c4 b4 4.Rb5+Kxc4 5.Sxd6+ Kb3(Kc3;Se4+)6.Se4 blq7.sd2+ka4 8.Sxbl Kxb5 9.h6 wins. Moscow Town traditional 2001 The award was published in Shakhmatnaya kompozitsia 44 (5xii2001). The tourney was dedicated to the 95th birthday of A.P.Kazantsev and was judged by A.P.Kazantsev and K.Tarnopolsky. The set theme: max 10 men. 18 entries by 15 composers. One was eliminated for a f3e /4 Win No A.Visokosov (Moscow). l.bb7? Ke5 2.Sf2 hlq+ 3.Sxhl Bfl draw. So: l.kg3 Ke5/i 2.Sf2 Bc4 3.Sg4+ Kd6 4.Se3/ii Bb5 5.Sf5+ Kc7/iii 6.Sd4 Ba6 7.Bhl Bfl 8.Se6+ Kd6 9.Sf4 Bb5 10.Kxh3 Bc6 ll.sg2 and White has wrapped it up. i) Bfl 2.Bb7 Bg2 3.Bc8+ and 4.Kxli2. ii) 4.Sf6? Bb5 5.Bhl Bc6 6.Se4+ Ke5 with a draw, iii) Kc5 6.Sb3+. Ke5 6.Sh4 Bc4 7.Bhl Bd5 8.Sf3+. Kd7 6.Sd4 Bfl 7.Kxh2 Bg2 8.Sf3 wins. "A systematic movement of classic proportions so as to avoid exchange of the light bishop and to lure bk to c7 whereby the ws that implements this decoy blocks the corner-tocorner played wb on hi in a5b /4 Win No N.Kralin. l.rc7+? Kxc7 2.a8Q Rf5+ 3.Kb4 Kxd7, and 4.Qa7+ Kc6, or 4.Qb7+ Kd6, drawn. So: l.a8q+ Kxa8 2.Kb6 Ba6 3.Kxa6 Ra3+ 4.Kb6 Rb3+ 5.Kc7 Ra3 6.Rcl/i h2 7.Sb8 Ra7+ 8.Kc8 Rh7 9.Ral+ Ra7 10.Sa6hlQ ll.sc7mate. i) Thematic try: 6.Sb8? Ra7+ 7.Kc8 Rh7 8.Ra6+ Ra7 9.Rh6 Rg7 10.Sc6 h2 ll.rli4 Rg8+ 12.Kc7 Rg7+ 13.Kb6 Rb7+ 14.Ka6 hlq 15.Rxhl Rb6+ with stalemate. 704

21 No M.Grushko 3rd prize Moscow Town 2001 s r m r m v m b8a /2 Win No M.Grushko. I.a5 Ka4 2.Kc7 Kb5 3.Kd6 Sc6 4.a6 Sa7 5.Kc7 Kxa6/i 6.Sd6 Ka5 7.Kb7 Kb4 8.Kb6zzwins. i) Sc6 6.Sa5 Sa7 7.Kb7 wins. "Ultraminiature climaxing in areci-zug." 2.Kg5+ KB 3.RM g3 4.Bd3Kg2 5.Be4mate. i) l.bxg6+? Ke3. l.rxg4+? Ke3 2.Rxg6 2 3.Rf6 Ke2 4.Ke6 flq 5.Bd3+ Kxd3 6.Rxfl e4 draws. "The strong black passec pawns theme yields a pah] 1 of pure mates (out of three) with pawns actively blocking. The selfsame pawns that were thrusting forward so threatening^ contribute, in a sense, to the 'helpmate'." No E.Markov, 5th prize Moscow Town 2001 Specifically, the unconstrained bq has no move eitherto give check or to cover the threatened mate; wb stops the checks; wr controls f5, g8 and h5. We note the incidental fact that both wk and bk return whence they set out." No G.Amiryan, 1 st honourable mention Moscow Town 2001 No D.Vorontsov, V.Katsnelson 4th prize Moscow Town 2001 f7e /5 Win No D.Vorontsov, V.Katsnelson (St Petersburg). l.kxg6/i f2 f8h No l.ke7+ Kh7 2.Bxe4+ f5 3.Bxf5+ Kxh6 ( Kg7 5.Rh7+ Kg8 6.Rxli5 flq 7.Rg5+ Kh8 8.Kf8 and checkmate follows. "The fight against the strong passed bpf2 leads up to something unique: every piece has had I to travel to its one-and-only destination square. d8e /3 Draw No Gamlet Amiryan (Erevan). 1.d7 Bb4 2.h6 Kf6 3.Ke8/i Bh5+ 4.Kd8 Be2 5.Ke8 Bb5 6.h7 Kg7 7.f6+ Kxh7 8.Kf7 Bc4+ 9.Ke8 Bb5 10.Kf7 Bxd7 stalemate, i) 3.h7? Ba5+ 4.Ke8 Bh5+ 5.Kf8 Bb4+ 6.Kg8 Bf7+ 7.Kh8 Bc3 8.d8Q+ Kxf5+ 9.Qf6+ Bxf6 mate. 705

22 No N.Argunov 2nd honourable mention Moscow Town 2001 f3h /6 Win No N.Argunov. l.sgl+ Kxh2/i 2.Kf2 g4 3.Sg5,with: - g3+ 4.Ke2 e4 5.S5h3 g5 6.Ke3 g4 7.Kxe4 gxh3 8.SB mate, or - e4 4.Sxe4 g3+ 5.Sxg3 g5 6.Se4 g4 7.Sg5 g3+ 8.Ke2 Kxgl 9.Sf3 mate. i) Kh4 2.h3 Kh5 3.Kg3 Kh6 4.Kg4 wins. No A.Manvelian 3rd honourable mention Moscow Town 2001 r r r m r Ba8 4.c5/ii Bb7 5.c4/iii Ba8 6.Ka6 Kc8 7.Kb6 Kb8 8.Ka6 Bb7+ 9.Kb6 Ka8/iv 10.Kc7 Ka7 ll.kd6 Ka8 12.Kc7 Ka7 13.Kd6 Kb8 14.Kd7 Ba8 15.Kd8 Kb7 16.Kd7 Kb8 17.Kd8 Bb7 18.Kd7 positional draw again, this time with K-movements on the file. i) Thematic try: 2x4? a3 3x5 Kb8 4x4 Ka8 5.Kc7 Ka7 6.Kd6 Ka6 7.Kc7 Ba8 8.Kb8 Ka5 9.Kxa8 Kb4 10.Kb7 Kxc5 ll.kc7 Kxc4 wins. ii)not4x3?bb7 5x5Kc8 6x4 Kb8 wins, iii) Reci-zug to White's heart's desire. iv) Otherwise there will be a positional draw with K- movements on the rank.. "Synthesis of two successive positional draws based on reci-zug and the struggle for control of the d4 square." No B.N.Sidorov, commendation Moscow Town 2001 No Boris Sidorov. l.se3 Qxhl 2.S3g2Qxg2+ 3.Sxg2 h2 4.a8Q hlq 5.Qa7+ Kh2 6.Qc7+ Kgl 7.Qcl+ Kh2 8.Qf4+ Kgl 9.Qf2+wins. No S.Kasparyan commendation Moscow Town 2001 d5d /4 Draw No Sergei Kasparyan (Erevan). l.kc4 b2 2.Sd5 blq 3.Sf3+Kc2 4.Sel+,with: - Kd2 5.SD+ Kc2 6.Sel+ draw, or -Kb2 5.Sc3 Qal 6.Sdl + Ka2 7.Sc3+ Kb2 8.Sdl+ Kbl 9.Sc3+draw.. c5c /4 Draw No A.Manvelian. l.kb6 a4 2.a3/i Kb8 3.c4.1 H HA e2gl /4 Win 706

23 No E.Markov commendation Moscow Town Kg5 Re4 6.Rg2+ Kxg2 7.Bd5 wins. "For a first-timer 'scoring' in this event." underpromotion." No G.Novikov 2nd prize Vecherny Leningrad b5a /6 Win No! E.Markov. l.rbl Bxe6 2.Sb4 Bc4+ 3.Kxe4 d5+ 4.Kc3 d4+ 5.Kc4, with: - Rd6 6.Rb3+ Ka4 7.Rb2 Ka5 8.Kc5 Ka4 9.Kxd6 wins, or - i Re6 6.Rb3+ Ka4 7.Rb2 Ka5 8.Ra2+ Kb6 9.Ra6+ wins. No G.Egersky special commendation Moscow Town 2001! g /3 Win No G.Egersky. l.isg4+ Kg3 2.Rxh2 Rd5+ 3.Kf6 Rd4 4.Se5 Rf4+ Vecherny Leningrad K.Pochtarev (Leningrad) judged this tourney. No Nikolai Kralin 1 st prize Vechemy Leningrad flh /4 Win No Nikolai Kralin (Moscow) I.d7 Kg3 2.Kgl/i Sd4 3.Bxd4 Rhl(+ 4.Kxhl d2 5.Bf2+ Kli3 6.d8R and White wins, not 6.d8Q?dlQ(dlR)+. I not i) David Blundell 2.Kel? Rhl+ 3.Kd2 4.d8Q Se4+ 5.Ke3 Rei+ 6.Kd4 d2. ii) the HvdH database ghjes here 3...Rh2+ 4.ICxd3 Rlil 5.Be5+ Kg4 6.Kd2 s'd6 7.d8Q Sc4+ "Not on the grand scale, but very clear with its sacrifices by both sides leading up to White's r v/ r ^J^^ glf /3 Win No G.Novikov (Belarus) Lh7 Se2+ 2.Kh2 Bd4 3.e5Bxe5 4.Bd6Bxd6 5.h8Q Kg4+ 6.g3 Bxg3+ 7.Kg2, and White wins. "The excellent introduction leads to a key position in queen against bishop and knight." No V. Razumenko 3rd prize Vecherny Leningrad a4fl /5BTMWin No Viktor Razumenko (Leningrad) 2.b8Q Qh7 3.Qf4 707

24 Qc2+ 4.Kb5 glq 5.Be4+ cqf2 6.Qcl+ Ke2 7.Qxc4+ Kel 8.Qcl+ Ke2 9.Qc2+ Kel 10JBd3gQxg3 ll.qcl mate. "A study on a theme explored in depth by the composer: the fight against two black queens resulting in a pure mate." No Shulman 4th prize Vecherny Leningrad w w p h4c /3 Win No I.Shulman (Leningrad) I.g7 Kc7 2.Sf8 Rbl 3.Se6+ (g8q? Rhl+ ; ) Kd6 4.Kh5/i Rb8/ii 5.Sd8 Rxd8 6.Sb7+, and White wins. i) David Blundell: The purpose of the apparently redundant bsa8 is revealed after the try: 4.Sb7+? Ke7 5.Sg5/iiiRhl+6.Kg4Rgl+ 7.Kh5 Rxg5+-8.Kxg5 Kf7 9.Kh6 Kg8 10.Sd6 Sc7 ll.sfs Sd5 12.Kg6 Sf4+ 13.Kh6 Sd5 draw, ii) Kxe6 5.g8Q+. Or Rhl+ 5.Kg6Rgl+6.Sg5. hi) 5.Kh5? Kf7 6.Sd6+ Kg8 7.Sf5 Rb5, drawn. "It is so unexpected that both knights participate in the fight for White's passed pawn despite starting of on opposite edges of the board." No G.Pozdnyakov 5th prize Vecherny Leningrad w m m m y 'm" v ^J^ blg /2 Win No G.Pozdnyakov (Leningrad) I.f4+, with: - Qxf4 2.Bd2/i Qxd2 3.Se4+ and 4.Sxd2 winning, or - Kxf4 2.Bc7/ii Qxc7 3.Se6+ and 4.Sxc7 winning. i) And not 2.Se6+? ii) And not 2.Sd3+? "A working of the known theme of fork-enticement of the queen. The whole mechanism, including the doubled sacrifice, is familiar, but the clarity and polish of this study guarantee its charm." No M.Zinar and V.Ivanov 1 st honourable mention Vecherny Leningrad f4g /4 Draw No M.Zinar (Odessa region) and V.Ivanov (Simferopol) l.kg5/i Kg7 2.Kf5 Kh7 3.Kf6 Kg8 4.Kg5 Kf8 5.Kf4(Kg4) Ke8 6.Kg5 Ke7 7.Kf5 Kd7 8.Kf6 Ke8 9.Kg5 d4 10.Kf4 Kd7 ll.ke4 Kc6 12.ICxd4 Kb5 13.Ke4 Kb4 14.Kf5 Kc3 15.Kf6(Kg5) Kd4 16.Kf5 Ke3 17.Kg5 Ke4 18.Kf5 Kd4 19.Kf5 positional draw, i) l.ke3? Kg7 2.Kd4 Kg6 3.ICxd5 Kf5 4.Kd4 Kf4 5.Kd5 Ke3 6.Kc5 Ke4 7.Kb5 Kxe5 8.ICxa5 f5 9.b4 f4 10.b5 f3 Il.b6 Kd6! 12.Ka b7 flq+, and Black wins. 708

25 No A.Belyavsky 2nd honourable mention Vecherny Leningrad Rgl c4 3.Kc5 c3 4.Kd6 c2 5.Sh6+ Kf6 6.e4 clq 7.e5 mate. No Eduard Asaba =4/5th honourable mention Vecherny Leningrad No N.Cherepenin (Leningrad) l.bc4 Bxc4 2.Sd2 Rxd3 3.Kc2 Rd4/i 4.Kc3 Rd3+ 5.Kc2 9 positional draw. i)bb5 4.Sb3+Kd2 5.Scl. No P.Gutman commendation Vecherny Leningrad f3a /4 Win No A.Belyavsky (Leningrad) l.bbl Bel 2.Se6 Kb2 3.Bd3 c2 4.Sd4 Bd2 5.Sc4+ Kc3 6.Se2+/i Kxd3 7.Sb2 mate, i) The knight had to be defended by the bishop - see move 3. "Far from easy to solve." No V.Katsnelson 3rd honourable mention Vecherny Leningrad gle /4 Draw No Eduard Asaba (Moscow) La8Q+ Bxafe 2.Sxg7+ Kf7 3.h8Q Qxli'8 4.Be6+ Kf6 5.Bd4+ Kg5 6.Be3+ Kli4 7.Bf2+ Kg5 8.Be3+, with a positional draw. No N.Cherepenin =4/5th honourable mention Vecherny Leningrad # I! P f5a /6 Win No P.Gutman (Leningrad) l.ba2 Kb5 2.Kg6 f2 3.Sf5 flq 4.Bxc4+ Qxc4/i 5.Sd6+ Kb4(Kc5) 6.Sxc4 Kxc4 7.Kxf6 wins. i) Had wk played 2.Kxf6?, then here 4...Kxc4 would be possible and good seeing that ws would be pinned and unable to fork one3. 1 B B b6g /4 Win No V.Katsnelson (Leningrad) l.rg5+ Kf7 dial /3 Draw 709

26 No A.Kotov commendation Vecherny Leningrad m m if 111 B «w in a g7a /9 Win No A.Kotov (Leningrad region) LRh8+ Ka7 2JBb8+ Ka8 3.Bg3+ Ka7 4.Rxh4 f4 5.Rxf4 Kb8 6.Rf + Ka7 7.Bb8+ Ka8 8.Bxh2+ Ka7 9.Bb8+ Ka8 10.Bg3+ Ka7 ll.rf4 Kb8 12.Rh4+ Kc8 13.Rxhl No P.Kryukov commendation Vecherny Leningrad Kg8 6.Sxd7 wins. No Yu.Makletsov commendation Vecherny Leningrad » m m m a u. r w * f7h /3 Win No Yu.Makletsov (Yakutia) l.sg5 Kg4 2.h7 g2 3.h8QglQ4.Qc8+Kg3 5.Qc3+ Kg4 6.QB+ Kh4 7.Qf4+ Qg4 8.SB+ Kh3 9.Qh2 mate. "The mating sequence has appeal." No I.Shulman commendation Vecherny Leningrad Qxf3 4.Bd5+ Qxd5 5.Sc7+ wins, or - Qc2+ 4.Sc7+ Ka7 5.Bxb6+ Kxb6 6.Bxc2, winning. "The Q-grab theme complemented by stalemate ideas from the black side." Vecherny Leningrad K.Pochtarev (Leningrad) judged this tourney. EG is the 1st prize, by A.Kopnin (Chelyabinsk) EG is the 2nd prize, by Viktor Razumenko (Leningrad) No David Gurgenidze and Leopold Mitrofanov 1 st honourable mention Vechemy Leningrad i A m A m A m g3h /6 Win No P.ICryukov (Leningrad) l.bc2+ Kg8 2.Qc5 Rb8 3.Qf8+ Rxf8 4.Bh7+ ICxh7 5.gxfBS+ i r «r m, y m^ c8a /3 Win No I.Shulman l.bd4+ b6 (Qxd4;Sb5+) 2.Sb5+Ka8 3.Bb3,with: h3g /3 Win No David Gurgenidze (Georgia) and Leopold Mitrofanov (Leningrad) Lh6 Sf2+ 2.Kh4 Kli7 3.g4 fsxg4 710

27 4.Bxg4, with: - Sxg4 5.Kxg4 Kxh6 6.g8R and White wins, or - Sf5+ 5.Bxf5 Kxh6 6.g8S+ Kg7 7.Be6 winning. "Hard on the solver." No V.Razumenko 2nd honourable mention Vechemy Leningrad No Nikolai Kralin 3rd honourable mention Vechemy Leningrad rm r m r mm w m r m. r m m No Aleksei Sochniev 5th honourable mention Vechemy Leningrad r r v f f6h /4 Win No V.Razumenko (Leningrad) l.qd8+/i Qg8 2.Bc3 glq/ii 3.Kf5+ Qlg7 4.Bxg7+ Kxg7 5.Qf5 mate, i) White declines taking the undefended black queen, ii) Black in turn declines the offer of White's undefended queen - and makes another of his own. a4f /4 Draw No Nikolai Kralin 1 (Moscow) LSe3+ Ke4 2.Sd5 Kxd5 (axblq;sxc3+) 3.Rdlj Kc4 4.Ka3 b2 5.Kxa2 c2 6.Rd4+,with: Kxd4 7.Kxb2 Kd3 8.Kcl Kc3 stalemate Kc3 7.Rc4+ Kx- 8.Kxb2 Kd3 9.Kcl Kc3 stalemate Hew Dundas, who plays tlirough some of the awards prepared by AJR, is reminded of game 13 in the 1972 Spassky v. Fisch'er match for the world championship played Reykjavik. EGS honourable - Leonard (Leningrad). is the 4th mention, by Katsnelson f6e /4 Draw No Aleksei Sochniev (Leningrad) Lf5 Sg4+2.Kg5Sh6 3.e7Sf7+ 4.Kf6 Sd6 5.Ke5 Se8 6.f6 Sxf6 7.e8Q Sxe8 stalemate. No P.Gutman commendation Vechemy Leningrad d5f /7 Draw No P.Gutman (Leningrad) 1.Bc5 dxc5/i 2.Sxe5+ Rxe5+/ii 3.Kxe5 g3 4.Rd3 Q 5.Rxg3 flq 6.Rf3+ Qxf3, a pure mid-board stalemate, i) Rb3 2.Bf2 Ke7 3.Sxe5 711

28 Rb5+ 4.Ke4 Rxe5+ 5.Kf4 draw. ii) Black in turn makes a sacrifice, putting his faith in his passed pawns. No Yu.Zalevsky commendation Vecherny Leningrad A m a f6h /8 Win No Yu.Zalevsky (Leningrad) I.a7 hlq 2.a8Q+ Qxa8 3.Rd8+ Qxd8 4.Kxf7+ Qd4 5.Bxd4 mate. No A.Kotov commendation Vecherny Leningrad Qxe8 2.Rxd5+ Kxd5 3.Rdl+ Ke6 4.Rel+ Kf7 5.g6+ Kf8 6.g7+ Kf7 7.Rxe8 and White wins. No A.Popov commendation Vechemy Leningrad e6f /4 Win No A.Popov (Leningrad) l.erlil Rg7/i 2.Rxg5 Rxg5 3.Kf6 Rg7 4.Rli8+ Rg8 5.R1V7 Ke8 6.Ra7 Rf8+ 7.Ke6 and White wins. i) Bf5 2.Rf5 Kg7 3.Rh7+ Kxh7 4.Kxf7 Bg7 5.Rg5 BI16 6.Rxg4 wins. Vecherny Leningrad This tourney was judged by columnist Yu.Fokin. No A.Maksimovskikh 1st prize Vecherny Leningrad xm^ Mpw, r to A w. A/ m. A m \ :y/ ^ y/ h5e /5 Draw No A.Maksimovskikh (Kurgan region) l.rf6 Sf5 2.Rxf5 Ra5 3.Sb5 Rxb5 4.d5 Rxd5 5.Be5 Rxe5 6.Rxe5+ Se6 7.Rxe6+ Kf7 8.Re4 flq 9.Rf4+ Qxf4 stalemate. "The bright gambitty play with 7 sacrifices, 6 of them passive, and the beautiful old-fashioned checkmate, resonate with a romantic echo of former times." No V.Katsnelson 2nd prize Vecherny Leningrad b6d /5 Win No A.Kotov (Leningrad region) l.e8s+ b4b /4 Win 712

29 No V.Katsnelson (Leningrad) l.rf6 Kc7 2.Bf3 Re5 3.Rxf7+ Kd6 4.g6 Rg5 5.g7 d2 6.Kc3 Ke6 7.Bd5+ Kxd5 8.Rf5+ Rxf5 9.g8Q+ wins. "An example of a realistic study - realistic as to material, as to starting position, and as to the play." No V.Kondratev and A.Kopnin 1 st honourable mention Vechemy Leningrad m H if m m m m e3a /4 Draw No V.Kondratev and A.Kopnin (Chelyabinsk) l.rb6+ Ka7 2.Se5 a2 3.Rxb2 alq 4.Sc6+ Ka6 5.Ra2+ Qxa2 6.Sb4+ and 7.Sxa2 drawing. No L. Katsnelson 2nd honourable mention Vechemy Leningrad e4a /5 Win No Leonard Katsnelson (Leningrad) I.d7 Sf6+ 2.Kd3 Sxd7 3.Rxc8 Sb6 4.Rc7 Sai 5.Ra7+ Kb5 6.Bc4+ Kb4 7.Bxb3Kxb3 8.Rb7+wins. No B.Lurye and L.Mitrofanov =3/4th honourable mention Vechemy Leningrad m m BAB B B m B r Wffl' '"%& p$l or - Kf6 4.Bb4 b2 5.Bxc3+ wins. i) b2 3.Be7+ g5 4.Bd6 and 5.Bg3 mate. ii) 3.Bg7? Kf4 4.Bxc3 Kxf3 5.Kh3 g5 draw. No Yu.Makletsov =3/4th honourable mention Vechemy Leningrad r m, r «r I f5h /3 Win No Yu.Makletsov (Yakutia) l.rel Bc2+ 2.Kf5 blq 3.Rxbl Bxbl 4.K17 Ba2+ 5.Kf8 Bxg8 6.g6 Bxli7 7.g7 mate. No A.Kotov commendation Vechemy Leningrad h2h /4 Win No B.Lurye and L.Mitrofanov (Leningrad) I.g6 fxg6 2.g4 Kg5/i 3.Kg3/ii, with: - b2 4.Bg7 and 5.f4 mate, flf /7 Win 713

30 No A.Kotov (Leningrad region) l.fbq Qc6 2.Qe8 Qxe8 3.Bd5+ Qe4 4.Sf7 Rxf7 5.Sxe4 fxe4 6.Bxf7 Sc6 7.Bb3 Sd4 8.Bdl+ Se2 9.Bxe2 mate. No Yu.Makletsov and A.Maksimovskikh commendation Vecherny Leningrad glf /5 Win No Yu.Makletsov and A.Maksimovskikh l.rd4 h2+/i 2.KM Ke3 3.Rxd2 Kxd2 4.g4 Ke3 5.g5 Kf4 6.g6 Kg3 7.g7 Kh3 8.g8B wins, but not 8.g8Q(g8R) stalemate?, and not 8.g8S? Kg3 9.Se7 Kf3 10.Sd5 Ke4 ll.sm Kd4 12.Kxh2 Kc3 13.Sd5+ Kb2 14.Sb4Kc3draw. i) Ke3 2.Rxd2 Kxd2 3.g4 h2+ 4.Kxh2 Kc2 5.g5 Kb2 6.g6 Kxa2 7.g7 Kb2 8.g8Q with a known win - the presence of bph4 leads to Black's undoing. HvdH is stronly reminded of the 19th century Dutch composer L.J.Bodding's study (1853): alb b5h2a3a5h3 3/3+. IV International tourney of Vecherny Leningrad Columnist Yu.Fokin and K.Pochtarev judged this tourney. No V.Razumenko 1 st prize Vecherny Leningrad g3gl /9 Win No V.Razumenko (Leningrad) l.qd2 Qc2 2.Qel+ Bfl 3.Qe3+ Qf2+ 4.Qxf2+ Khl 5.b6 a3 6.b7 (Qc5? d5;) a2 7.b8Q alq 8.Qgl+ Kxgl 9.Qb6+ Qd4 10.Qxd4+ Khl ll.qxe4 Sg6 12.Qf3 wins. "We all like a queen sacrifice in a study, and here we have three of them!" No P.Arestov 2nd prize Vecherny Leningrad b5d /5 Win No P.Arestov (Moscow region) 1.f7 Rd5+ 2.Kb6 Sg6 3.Bxg6 Be7 4.Se4+ Ke6 5.Re8 Se5 6.f8S mate. "A most beautiful checkmate with three active selfblocks and a promotion to knight." No V.Prigunov 3rd prize Vecherny Leningrad d4a /7 Win No V.Prigunov (Kazan) l.a8q+ Qxa8 2.Bfl Qa7+ 3.Ke4 Qa8+ 4.Ke3 Qa7+ 5.Kxf3 Qa8+ 714